Visual results and subjective satisfaction after implantation of two different trifocal diffractive intraocular lenses models (AcrySof IQ PanOptix and AT LISA tri 839 MP)

Malyugin Boris; Fomina Olga; Sobolev Nikolay; Belokopytov Alexander; Levinger Eliya; Knyazer Boris; Mark Krauthammer; Tal Yahalomi; Achiron Asaf

doi:10.1177/11206721231201561

Visual results and subjective satisfaction after implantation of two different trifocal diffractive intraocular lenses models (AcrySof IQ PanOptix and AT LISA tri 839 MP)

Eur J Ophthalmol. 2023 Sep 28:11206721231201561. doi: 10.1177/11206721231201561. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Malyugin Boris^{1

2}, Fomina Olga¹, Sobolev Nikolay¹, Belokopytov Alexander³, Levinger Eliya⁴, Knyazer Boris⁵, Mark Krauthammer⁴, Tal Yahalomi⁶, Achiron Asaf⁴

Affiliations

¹ The S. Fyodorov Eye Microsurgery Federal State Institution, Moscow, Russian Federation.
² Yevdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, Department of Eye Diseases, Moscow, Russian Federation.
³ Institute for Information Transmission Problems (Kharkevich Institute), Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation.
⁴ Souraski Medical Center and School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
⁵ Soroka University Medical Center and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel.
⁶ Samson Assuta Ashdod Hospital and the faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel.

PMID: 37770020
DOI: 10.1177/11206721231201561

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to compare visual results following the implantation of two distinct diffractive trifocal IOLs utilizing various vision evaluation techniques and subjective satisfaction.

Methods: The study included 32 eyes receiving AcrySof IQ PanOptix implantation and 32 receiving AT LISA tri 839 MP. Post-operative examination at one year included uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), distance-corrected visual acuity (DCVA) at 4 m, 80 cm, 60 cm, and 40 cm, Contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions, and a questionnaire on subjective quality of vision, optical phenomena, and spectacle independence.

Results: The two groups were similar in baseline demographics, pre-operative visual, biometric data (except for axial length), and surgical paraments. The PanOptix outperformed the AT LISA tri in the intermediate range when using the standard visual acuity testing (UCVA: 0.23 ± 0.14 logMAR vs. 0.31 ± 0.17 logMAR, p = 0.04; BCVA: 0.21 ± 0.12 vs. 0.28 ± 0.14, p = 0.03) and in the intermediate and far range when using the interactive computer program (intermediate: UNVA "E" optotype test: 0.05 ± 0.12 vs. 0.12 ± 0.13, p = 0.03; Far: UNVA "E" optotype: 0.07 ± 0.12 vs. 0.13 ± 0.10, p = 0.05). In addition, the PanOptix group had higher contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions with and without glare at all spatial frequencies. There was no difference in subjective outcomes between the groups.

Conclusions: Patients who received PanOptix IOL had better visual outcomes for intermediate and far with higher contrast sensitivity under various conditions. Based on patients ' needs and demands, these results could support discussion when tailoring the optimal multifocal IOl.

Keywords: cataract surgery.; contrast sensitivity; interactive computer program; multifocal intraocular lens; optotypes; trifocal intraocular lens; visual acuity.